Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 14468 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2007 16:00:59 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Mar 2007 16:00:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 43998 invoked by uid 500); 28 Mar 2007 16:01:05 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 43956 invoked by uid 500); 28 Mar 2007 16:01:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 43944 invoked by uid 99); 28 Mar 2007 16:01:05 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:01:05 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of david@jetnet.co.uk designates 80.87.128.128 as permitted sender) Received: from [80.87.128.128] (HELO kosh.jetnet.co.uk) (80.87.128.128) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:00:54 -0700 Received: from [192.168.1.100] (unknown [89.242.89.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by kosh.jetnet.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A3F224AA7 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:00:17 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <460A910E.5030000@jetnet.co.uk> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:00:14 +0100 From: David Reid User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070306) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: future of ssl code References: <20070328154740.GA2272@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20070328154740.GA2272@redhat.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Joe Orton wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 10:09:43AM -0500, William Rowe wrote: >>> Given Joe's stance (which I'm taking as a veto) I think removing it and >>> starting a seperate "module" within apr's repo would make the most sense >>> and should remove the veto from 1.3 - making everyone happy. >> I definately don't want to see this handled piecemeal. Please leave it in >> place, and Joe please reconsider your veto. > > I have not vetoed anything. In principle I have no objection to putting > the SSL code in apr-util. As I said originally: I would prefer to see > the code develop in a branch until it reaches a suitable state for > inclusion in the trunk/a release. I assume my suggestion to remove the code into a separate module would also satisfy you?